TULSI RAM Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS suit for possession on the basis of his right of prior purchase was dismissed by the Sub -Judge, Reasi. On appeal, the District Judge, Udhampur, affirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then preferred a second appeal to this court which was heard by Jalal -ud -Din J. sitting singly who by his judgment dated 18 -8 -1972 dismissed the same and maintained the decree. This appeal under the Letters Patent against that decree owes its institution to the leave granted by the learned single Judge under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court.

(2.) THE suit was filed as early as 29 -2 -1960. It is agonizing that a simple suit for enforcement of a right of prior purchase has taken more than fourteen years in its final decision. The land which is the subject matter of pre -emption was worth Rs. 900/ - only. I wonder how many times more is the cost of litigation incurred by the parties, besides, colossal time, which this litigation has consumed.

(3.) A short history of the case so far as it is relevant for the disposal of the appeal is as follows: - Mst. Godawari, Isher Dass, and Kewal Krishen were the three out of a number of cosharers in Khewat No. 23 of the Mahal of Reasi. Mst. Godawari sold land measuring 5 kanals and 10 Marlas comprising survey Nos. 669/395 and 671/395 under Khewat No. 23 situate in the town of Reasi in favour of defendant No. 1 by a sale deed dated 28 -2 -1959 for a consideration of Rs. 900/ -. The defendant vendee was an owner in the mahal on the date of sale but not an owner or a cosharer in khewat No. 23. The plaintiff had purchased seme land in khewat No. 23 comprising Khasra Nos. 670/395 and 396 from Prem Nath, the son of Isher Dass, a cosharer of Mst. Godawari. Alleging that he is an owner in the mahal and that the vendee is not, the plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of the Sub -Judge, Reasi, for possession on the ground that he had a prior right to purchase the land. The defendant vendee denied that the plaintiff had a better or prior right to purchase. The principal issue, which arose for trial, was whether the plaintiff had a prior right of purchase. The trial court held that the plaintiff was an owner in the Mahal and so was the defendant vendee. The plaintiff therefore had no prior right to purchase. The suit was accordingly dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment dated 20 -1 -1962.